Debate has existed in the world for hundreds of years, developing at the beginning of humanity but evolving more publicly in the early eighteenth century. Humans love to argue their point of view with others in order to determine the “correct” perspective on various matters. Throughout the world, many approach a debate with opinions formulated from different outlooks on life. Perspectives of a situation establish themselves based on where and how a person was raised. When elaborating on historical events, more often than not, two passionate sides emerge: those who focus on injustices and freedom and those who look at events focused on traditional values. After examining two takes on colonial America, it is obvious that Howard Zinn focuses
…show more content…
Time and time again, he vehemently comments on the mistreatment of the Native Americans. However, they are presented with one-sided evidence, shaping the information more as an opinion rather than fact. For example, when discussing Spanish conquest, he explains how “total control led to total cruelty” (Zinn 6). Zinn fails to recognize how some native tribes threatened peaceful coexistence and completely fixates on one side of the entire story. He also explains how the Spanish focused solely on income. The goal for the Spanish was so pivotal that Europeans “...roamed the island in gangs looking for gold, taking women and children as slaves for sex and labor” (Zinn 4). Spaniards viciously lurked. focusing only on capitalistic success. Though some may say that Zinn writes more accurately because Johnson represses the Native Americans altogether, Johnson accepts and admits the exploitation: “The Spaniards, hearts hardened… were ruthless in handling the Indians” (Johnson 8). He knows what happened and states the facts, but he is also able to demonstrate both sides of history while Zinn vehemently acknowledges one half of the whole picture. Not only is Zinn partial to the Native Americans, but he also demonstrates prejudice against the Eastern Hemisphere as a …show more content…
He interrupts the American story to explain how historians have lost the rectitude of telling history accurately. Zealous rhetorics about “...the quiet acceptance of conquest and murder in the name of progress...” (Zinn 9) deteriorate Zinn’s argument. These points do not belong in the middle of an account of history and should be saved for the afterword or prelude of the book. By the same token, the obnoxious use of first person in what is supposed to be an unbiased historic work vitiates what is otherwise a compelling argument. It is difficult to concentrate on history when Zinn explains “my approach to the history of the United States” (Zinn 11) in the middle of a chapter. One would rather desire to read the author’s viewpoint before beginning the book rather than in the middle of the first chapter. While some may argue that Zinn proposes thought-provoking commentary on the world’s view on history, discussing biased standpoints society has produced, interrupting the flow of history to present this perspective distracts one from the outlook of history as a whole. Zinn discussed how the emphasized “..heroism of Columbus and… (de-emphasized) genocide” (Zinn 9) is a moral decision and justification for the injustices that occurred. However, it is easier to read about a history and later ponder the skewed stances of historians once all necessary information has been
Time and time again, he vehemently comments on the mistreatment of the Native Americans. However, they are presented with one-sided evidence, shaping the information more as an opinion rather than fact. For example, when discussing Spanish conquest, he explains how “total control led to total cruelty” (Zinn 6). Zinn fails to recognize how some native tribes threatened peaceful coexistence and completely fixates on one side of the entire story. He also explains how the Spanish focused solely on income. The goal for the Spanish was so pivotal that Europeans “...roamed the island in gangs looking for gold, taking women and children as slaves for sex and labor” (Zinn 4). Spaniards viciously lurked. focusing only on capitalistic success. Though some may say that Zinn writes more accurately because Johnson represses the Native Americans altogether, Johnson accepts and admits the exploitation: “The Spaniards, hearts hardened… were ruthless in handling the Indians” (Johnson 8). He knows what happened and states the facts, but he is also able to demonstrate both sides of history while Zinn vehemently acknowledges one half of the whole picture. Not only is Zinn partial to the Native Americans, but he also demonstrates prejudice against the Eastern Hemisphere as a …show more content…
He interrupts the American story to explain how historians have lost the rectitude of telling history accurately. Zealous rhetorics about “...the quiet acceptance of conquest and murder in the name of progress...” (Zinn 9) deteriorate Zinn’s argument. These points do not belong in the middle of an account of history and should be saved for the afterword or prelude of the book. By the same token, the obnoxious use of first person in what is supposed to be an unbiased historic work vitiates what is otherwise a compelling argument. It is difficult to concentrate on history when Zinn explains “my approach to the history of the United States” (Zinn 11) in the middle of a chapter. One would rather desire to read the author’s viewpoint before beginning the book rather than in the middle of the first chapter. While some may argue that Zinn proposes thought-provoking commentary on the world’s view on history, discussing biased standpoints society has produced, interrupting the flow of history to present this perspective distracts one from the outlook of history as a whole. Zinn discussed how the emphasized “..heroism of Columbus and… (de-emphasized) genocide” (Zinn 9) is a moral decision and justification for the injustices that occurred. However, it is easier to read about a history and later ponder the skewed stances of historians once all necessary information has been